"WHY HAS IT TAKEN HIM 2 YEARS?" Simon Jordan LAMBASTS Erik Ten Hag after REVEALING Man Utd comments!

talkSPORT

Simon Jordan challenges Erik ten Hag over his Manchester United revelations

The video focuses on Erik ten Hag’s interview with The Athletic about his Manchester United tenure, including broken promises from the hierarchy, the McTominay and Kane situations, and Cristiano Ronaldo. Simon Jordan questions why Ten Hag is speaking now and says his claims are self-serving and too vague, while another host argues Ten Hag has grounds to hit back as the club’s last trophy-winning manager. The discussion also accepts that the United hierarchy must answer for its own poor decisions.

Simon Jordan and Jim White react to Erik Ten Hag's public comments on his time at Manchester United. Subscribe: https://youtube.com/c/talkSPORT Enjoyed this YouTube video? 😍 🖥️ talkSPORT's Website: https://talksport.com/ 📲 talkSPORT's Twitter: https://twitter.com/talkSPORT 📷 talkSPORT's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talksport/?hl=en 👤 talkSPORT's Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/talkSPORT/ 📱 talkSPORT's Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talksport ? 🔴 Download the talkSPORT app HERE! - https://talksport.com/apps/ 🔎 Want to see if you feature on our YouTube channel? Check out our Best talkSPORT callers playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFVMnSsi04LGLa9pS9xDvme-Gjmlu2 talkSPORT PremierLeague

Transcript

Eric Tenhag's been talking, Simon. Uh, I wonder what you're going to make of this. Eric Tenhag, we remember him. You remember him. Tenhag won a League Cup and an FA Cup during his two full seasons in charge at Manchester United and was convinced that he could add the Europa League to that hall. But after a poor start to 2425 campaign and with Sir Jim Ratcliffe having arrived at this point, he was replaced by Ruben Amarim. We haven't heard much from Ten Hag until now because he spoke to the Athletic in the last hour and he said a variety of different things. So keen to get your take on this Simon and keen to get the take of United fans to what Tenhag is saying on the ownership. The ownership. Tenhag says they promised me loyalty. They promised me backing. They promised me communication that we would get aligned. We spoke about the issues, but the promises they didn't keep. He also felt that the club's leadership failed to back his efforts to discipline players. They're continuing the toxic culture. They fuel it. They give the power to the players. He said a bunch of things. He initially agreed not to sell Scott McTominay, who ended up at Napoli. He said he fought to sign Harry Kane with the board before eventually being told no. Um, I'll get to other matters. He spoke about Ronaldo in a second. >> Fair play to him. >> Well, I would imagine um that maybe the compensation that he was entitled to for the job that he did has now been paid up and he's now got the courage to be able to speak out. >> Yeah, but is it all about that? >> Well, why is it taken him two years to say something then? >> He says, "I've got a good name in the game and I want to keep a good name in the game." >> Well, it wasn't enough and >> this is the truth. >> Wasn't that good enough to keep him in the job for longer than three games at Liverusen, was it? Um, and he made a a a a joke of himself at certain times because there were two universes. There was the one that most people inhabited and the one that Ten Hung inhabited after a game where he decided to tell people that what they saw in front of their own bleeding eyes was something completely different to what he saw. >> But hang on. You like loyalty. They promised me loyalty. They promised me backing. They promised communication. He's out there now saying that, Simon, and he didn't get it according to Eric. But I would like him to have more detail about what he he's specifically uh referring to because he was given an opportunity. He wasn't employed by Jim Ratcliffe. He was reviewed by Jim Ratcliffe. So it was a sensible thing to some extent. It was made into a production by the very nature of how it got into the media. But the review when they were talking about reviewing his position if you remember and I always said at the time it was said to be outrageous and I said at the time nothing really wrong with that because if Jim Radcliffe is now responsible for the football operation and this isn't his appointment then he should perhaps review it and take a view at it and see what he should do with it. What I found incomprehensible was he gave him a new contract. Now the loyalty that Tenhog should would be asking for is based upon what he was given a new contract which means he probably got paid more money and compensation as a result of a new contract. You could say as a form of loyalty. Loyalty is as loyalty should be as long or as good as the person's performance. You can't just give loyalty to people that aren't very good. >> But if you make a promise with somebody in business, in life in general, your side of the bargain is to keep it. >> But we the other side of the bargain is that they keep it. >> How many how many times do we hear about these things that are so supposedly interpreted by someone that seeks to interpret the way they did? When Isac was desiring to leave Newcastle, he was told he could leave Newcastle unconditionally whenever he felt. That's not true. That's not what was said and I doubt I doubt what was said to Tenh Hog was you will get loyalty irrespective of how crap you are. >> All right. So you're saying with the ownership >> I'm not I'm saying that there's probably more detail behind this and I'd like to know the detail and understand exactly why why he's speaking now and what specifically he's referring to. But I bet there's nothing wrong with been given. So so who was the who's been disloyal to him? Who gave him the asurances specifically and explicitly? Name them. >> Well maybe he will next time down the line. >> Well do it now. This is the one opportunity. >> The ownership. They promised me loyalty, ownership. They promised me backing. They promised communication. And then on that one, >> promises they didn't keep. >> Who? >> He said, but he's being specific. >> He's not saying they initially agreed, the ownership is presumably referring to. They initially agreed not to sell McTominay. They sold him. >> He fought like crazy to sign Kane. >> Why? >> With the board before eventually being told, "No, he's not coming." >> Okay, let's take it at face value, but surely most of us in the room want to know why. So why did they suddenly go back on the of the situation with McTominay? Why did they not sign Harry Kane? And when you get into those weeds, then all of a sudden you'll find out that the way that it's being represented by somebody is of course to suit their own ends. The reasons why he's speaking now is to suit his own ends. And he's not speaking in a fashion which is particularly positive. He's speaking in a way which is all self- serving. I didn't get given that. >> He can speak now. Well, he's because he's been paid up. >> He's been He's been away long enough >> because because No, because he's been paid up, I suspect. >> Is there not the slightest chance here that Ten Hag himself was let down by the Manchester United hierarchy? Is it not the slightest chance? >> Possibly. But I really want people that are going to say these things to really stand it up and fill people in. >> Maybe you might do it in the next install. >> Fantastic. And then we can all sit. Why? We're all waiting for what is it? A serialized item. We're all waiting for him to drop his next little epithets. Epitheits. What's the word? >> Epithets. >> Epi. He was the last man >> props again. Like Barney Rooney said, "I'm there catching. >> Stop trying to derail me." He was the last manager to win a trophy with them. Um >> yeah, >> you know, you look at it and you think, "Well, fair play." I mean, he hasn't been gone that long, has he? >> He hasn't spoken until now, though, Simon. >> So, why shouldn't he throw it back at them? >> But you're saying he's the last manager to win a trophy with them. He hasn't been gone that long, right? And the idea that these people have something to say, but never ever make it specific. They >> He's being specific in what he said. He's he's talking >> it's not the solution to dismiss Michael Carrick. 100% not. Well, that's emphatic. Don't don't sack him. >> And that's fine. Here speaks somebody that was sacked. So I really I think his it's like taking it's like like taking a reference about someone's honesty from a thief. You wouldn't necessarily take that with much credence, would you? So with due respect, I think that he's not in a position to determine whether Michael Carrick is good enough to do his bloody job or not. >> But you're saying why doesn't Tenh Hag names? When somebody does name names, you go against that as well. Lando Martin. Landro Martinez named Wilox. >> He's not naming names. He's naming >> and he went after Martinez. >> He is naming because Martinez's motivations are very different uh than >> you names. You weren't having that. You're not having >> No, I'm not. We're talking about different subjects now. We're talking about Ten Hawk. So, we're talking about Martinez. Martinez can well names the people that he works for, not here. Martinez and Ten Hag are aligned. Upstairs is a problem. >> Yeah, could be. Could be. But I I really want to be able to make sure that if upstairs is absolutely a problem, which I think there is a distinct possibility it might be because they're making decisions that aren't very good like employing him, like giving him an extended contract when he should have been drop kicked out the door and like employing Carrick when they should have employed him with a bigger manager. All of these are absolutely on the management and the signings, the wasted money on Xerxio or other players that came in the kid that's gone over to Napoli now they sent the forward that could cow's backside with a banjo. Those people all of those ones were on the ownership because they've sanctioned them. But that doesn't mean that people get to scatter gun criticism without standing them up. If you're going to stand, he's being specific. No, he's not. He said he fought to sign Kane says on what they turned around and said, "No, you're not getting it." >> Okay, fantastic. Let's concur with that view, right? Why did they say no? Was it because he wanted too much money? Was it because they felt that he was potentially at an age where there wasn't any reinvestment. Tell us the reasons why. Don't just tell us the headline number. Now if you give the other side of the argument which Man United never seem to bother to work with themselves which I understand if you ask Tenhog so why didn't they sign Harry Kane and he says whatever the answer is then you can give a rounded view on how how reliable and valuable and credible and fair >> point the finger at them upstairs pointing the finger at the higher he entitled to do so >> if he's right >> we haven't heard from him until now >> but most people think that Ten Hog's reign at Manchester United was a poor reign. Most people felt that he didn't do a particularly good job. And I know we're citing the League Cup and the FA Cup as examples of winning something and then using it as the last thing they won, but he only went a year ago 18 months ago. Isn't that long, is it? >> It's about winning trophies though, isn't it? >> Always has been. >> And he did it. >> Always has been. >> They promised me loyalty. They promised me backing. They promised communication. So let's answer. >> So in other words, I didn't get that, that, and that after being told I was going to get it. >> Okay. So then, >> so he is being specific. >> So from who and by whom? And in which respect? Who? Who promised him the last? just told you Martinez is a player who's responsible for his performances and isn't responsible for how the club operates. He's he's an employee of the football club and he should be doing it in a certain way, not in a public domain. And the reason why he was doing it is because he's out of contract at the end of the season. Doesn't like the fact that he hasn't got a new contract and thinks he's underpaid. All these people, what a wonderful thing to do. This guy, if he wants to make these points, really stand them up and really load your gun and really make it unassalable for people to go, well, what do you mean? Because why was he sacked? He wasn't sacked because people didn't like the cut of his suit like me. He was sacked because he wasn't very good at his job. >> Let's put it out there this morning. We're hearing from Tenhag for the first time in a very good uh open interview with the Athletic and he he says a bunch of things. They promised me loyalty, backing, communication that we would get aligned and then he says we spoke about issues but the promises they didn't keep. Do you go with Tenhag in that? And unlike Simon here, is he entitled to say that without naming specific names? You might want to let us know what you think of that. Would you wish that they held on to Scott McTominay? I'm sure you did. Would you wish that they bought Harry Kane? I'm sure you did. Well, Tenhag wanted both of these things but didn't get them. According to Tenhag in this interview, we are talking about Eric Tenhag. We're talking about the interview that has dropped in the last hour. He has done an interview with the Athletics in which he says a variety of different things on the ownership. They promised me loyalty, backing, communication that we would get aligned. We spoke about the issues, but the promises, well, they didn't keep them. He said that they initially agreed not to sell Scott McTominay. He said he quotes fought to sign Harry Kane with the board before eventually being told, "No, you're not getting them." That and a whole lot more. But Simon, you're not having it. You would wish, as Landro Martinez did last week by naming Jason Wilcox, you want him to go further and call out certain names. >> No. Yeah. to some extent to add some more credibility to it. But not because I'm aligning myself with the management of Man United because I'm questioning the veracity of what he's saying because I think if you're going to make an observation then stand up the reasons behind it. It's very easy to throw around popcorn headlines like we wanted to sign Harry Kane who people will say is the best center forward in the world. Why in Christ's name wouldn't a club like Man United want to sign Harry Kane? That seems absolutely incomprehensible. And then there must be a reason behind that. And if the reason behind that is a reason which is unacceptable to people, football fans, Man United fans, people like me, then you got the full rounded picture. But he's not doing that. From what I can see, he's throwing out popcorn headlines that garner and gain attention. And people go, "Well, that can't be right. That can't be right. Why wouldn't they sign Kane?" And they reneged on the agreement about Scott McTominay and they didn't align with him. All of that is a one-way transaction of opinion. Now, the interesting thing would be do Man United pick up the cudgel and correct their record or say stay silent like the royal family, never complain, never explain, right? Or do or do we actually do an interview with someone like Ten Hog and go yeah is there a reason why then did why didn't they sign Kane what was the reasons that they gave you they didn't give many reasons so there was no reasons whatsoever >> what about the loyalty they didn't show him >> depends what the conditions of the loyalty were >> so I give you I give you I give you an alternative view on that in so far as I have one he wasn't Tenhog's wasn't Ratcliff's appointment Radcliffe for whatever reason reviewed him decided to keep him and gave him a new contract cont, >> which I'm assuming means more money. >> So then I'm assuming as a result of that contractual situation which made no sense to me whatsoever. They should have just left him what he was on >> that subsequently Tenhog's performance leading up to his dismissal created such an outcome that the loyalty was a fool's errand. You don't just give someone loyalty because once upon a time you wanted to support them and you wanted to be behind them and they're going completely the wrong way. You're trying to suggest they're going the wrong way. They're resistant to any observations that you might have as god forbid the owner and pay master. And so then you're sat with this ridiculous all-encompassing forever and a day loyalty, which by the way, these buggers never show. So it's a one-way transaction. So the bottom line is that he got loyalty by getting a bigger contract and paid on the way out for failing. >> Is it not true? There's a good message from a fan. Tenhag also had to contend with the Mason Greenwood situation. He did. Um, Ten Hag wasn't allowed to offload Rashford as Amarim eventually did. And that on that Amarim, the man they replaced him with, he didn't do that well, did he? >> Did Did he? >> So, the hierarchy didn't exactly be a blinder there. >> No, absolutely not. No, absolutely not. They're not They're not beyond reproach. They should be absolutely criticized. But let's if we're going to dish the criticism out, let's make sure it lands properly and fairly and squarely and make sure that we get it right. I don't know where did he did he want to bomb Rashford. Did he want to bomb Rashford? Was that I don't remember headlines about Tenhog wanting to bomb Rashford. >> Well, if I remember rightly, R the Rashford and Sancho situation became a bit of a pain in the backside for him. >> Right. Who signed them? Did he sign them? >> Um well, not Rashford. I would I would bring who would have brought them in. >> What Sancho? Who was who was the other one we just referred to in that conversation that he wasn't allowed to do something with? >> I'm looking at messages again. Mason Greenwood. >> Mason Greenwood. Well, the club with respect, the club was had to deal with that, not him. He would the club the club had to deal with all the ramifications, all the backdrop of the observations about Mason Greenwood. Man United women's team coming out and saying they didn't want to be in another building which was associated with the building because Man United because Mason Greenwood was in there. All of that sort of stuff. The club had to take the view, not him. The bunch of messages coming our way this morning. There's Jack. Harry Kane was never going to be sold to another Premier League club. Daniel Levy would never have allowed that deal to take place. So pretty even pointless even Tanhag bringing it up. >> So there's having said that it was under discussion and his reckoning is that he fought like crazy to get Kane >> but United >> before eventually being told no. >> But okay, so if I give you >> I'm not Tim Hag's agent, but I'm trying to put his side of the story. >> Well, he can do it himself. He's done it. Well, we don't need his side of the story. We can read it. What about his side of the story regarding Cristiano Ronaldo? Now, he brought his own headaches in his second period at the football club. Yeah. >> He says he let the team down and he let me down because we planned with him. I flew out to Portugal to speak with him about what I was aiming for before I came to United. Obviously, he's one of the best in football history. I respected him a lot. But at that time, as a manager, I had to make a rational decision and keep the players I admire carrying on. >> What's that mean? He alleges that Ronaldo encouraged teammates to conserve energy in training before requiring before getting to the required fitness levels. He says and he goes into detail in this. Ronaldo was telling the players save your legs at training. Well, we can't speak to that. Maybe we can get Ronaldo's PR on in Pierce Morgan and he can talk about this detail on that because he'll probably know more about that than everybody else put together. But the idea that what did he want from Ronaldo? What did he say to Ronaldo when he flew out to Ronaldo at Portugal to specifically see him as he inherited the reigns of Man United? What did he subsequently find out in the conversation that created that reaction in him which he said he wanted to keep the players that he admired? Did he not admire Ronaldo then? I don't understand what what is this some degree of a riddle wrapped up in a rhyme? >> Might they just have continued a toxic culture at the football club the hierarchy without knowing they'd done it? Might they just have fueled it? >> Yeah. >> Might they just have done that? I think I think there is suggest I think there is definitely some value in the observation that the the players get have been supported in situations over and above the manager which I think is fundamentally wrong. I don't think it's unique to Man United. I think it's unique to the fact that you've got assets that cost hundreds of millions of pounds and certainly tens of millions of pounds and somehow you've got to manage that situation. So what might appear like you're supporting a manager or sorry more to the point supporting a player is really a club taking a commercial view of what's the best outco